Old Reckless Driving / DUI and Competitive Residency?

[Taffinator]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I am hoping to place into a particular residency, and I believe that overall I am a competitive applicant. One aspect I am a bit nervous about is the fact that I have an alcohol related Reckless Driving charge (read reduced DUI charge) on my record from several years ago. The charge will be almost 9 years old when I apply to programs so I am hopeful that this will not be a significant issue (at least to most PD's). I got into medical school about 4 1/2 years after the incident, but I feel like it really limited my opportunities to enroll in top tier schools. This is the only thing on my record aside from a traffic ticket or two. So what do you guys think? Will this charge significantly affect my chances of matching into a competitive field? Thanks for any advice or opinions. I would especially love to hear from anyone with direct experience or knowledge of a situation like mine and the outcome.

 

[Taffinator]

Any opinions at all? If people don't feel comfortable posting in public feel free to PM me. Thanks

 

[shopsteward]

Can't help you on the specifics of residency applications. More generally, if I were considering this as part of an application to a different (but also very competitive) professional position, I would probably consider and then put aside a mention of a single incident from several years ago.

I might want to know a bit more where there is an additional reference to "a traffic ticket or two". If, taken with the original incident, these showed a record of possibly ongoing issues, I'd be more concerned. So you might like to look at what patterns might be revealed in the whole story and how, if necessary, you could show you have dealt with them, whether they are substance abuse issues or driving safety issues.

Good luck.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

The ERAS application for residency only asks for felonies, and possible licensing problems. This is clearly not the first (I hope). Whether it fits into the second category is unclear, as each state is different. Some will not care at all, others might.

You can assume that all programs will to background checks after you match. Since it's impossible to know how a program will react to your past, I think it's better to disclose up front. Most will not care at all -- it's in the distant past, and there doesn't seem to be a pattern of problems.

There was a thread, now deleted but I think you can still find it in google's cache, of a student who matched into a program in Texas and ended up getting fired and barred from the match because he did not disclose. In that case, they were asked about it during the interview day, and the poster was charged but not convicted (much less serious than your situation) and failed to mention it, and ended up screwed. So, I highly recommend you disclose early and often. Yes, some programs may not interview you because of it. But matching to a program and "failing" their background check could be disasterous. Best to match somewhere that knows and doesn't care.

 

[JaggerPlate]

The ERAS application for residency only asks for felonies, and possible licensing problems. This is clearly not the first (I hope). Whether it fits into the second category is unclear, as each state is different. Some will not care at all, others might.

You can assume that all programs will to background checks after you match. Since it's impossible to know how a program will react to your past, I think it's better to disclose up front. Most will not care at all -- it's in the distant past, and there doesn't seem to be a pattern of problems.

There was a thread, now deleted but I think you can still find it in google's cache, of a student who matched into a program in Texas and ended up getting fired and barred from the match because he did not disclose. In that case, they were asked about it during the interview day, and the poster was charged but not convicted (much less serious than your situation) and failed to mention it, and ended up screwed. So, I highly recommend you disclose early and often. Yes, some programs may not interview you because of it. But matching to a program and "failing" their background check could be disasterous. Best to match somewhere that knows and doesn't care.

I've always been curious as to what the 'anything in your past that could affect your ability to get a medical license' question is referring to. It seems really vague. What type of stuff are they looking for here aProg?

 

[JackADeli]

I've always been curious as to what the 'anything in your past that could affect your ability to get a medical license' question is referring to...

As it sounds, it can be quite vague. However, there is increasing concern each year about physician substance abuse and physician conduct or potential "disruptive physician" problems. With this in mind, a couple of things should generally be regarded as meeting the need for an affirmative answer to, 'anything in your past that could affect your ability to get a medical license'...

1. any record, or charges, or convictions for disorderly conduct, illicit substance purchasing/selling, illicit substance use, substance abuse, and DUI

2. any substance addiction (they will want you to explain circumstances, type and extent of treatment, etc...).

3. charges and/or findings of ~guilt of workplace abuse (i.e. psychological/hostile/intimidation/harassment, physicial or sexual abuse)

4. significant psychological disease, specifically anything with a manic component

5. ANY public record of....

As to #1 above, many state licensing boards want evidence and/or explanations for any traffic violation beyond simple speeding or parking. I have actually applied for licensing in states that wanted definitive explanations for even simple speeding violations. Anything that will require additional explanation/justification in licensing process = SOMETHING 'in your past that could affect your ability to get a medical license'

there can be plenty of "what if" and "not fair" debates.... save them for your attorney. This website is NOT an authority.

 

[JaggerPlate]

As it sounds, it can be quite vague. However, there is increasing concern each year about physician substance abuse and physician conduct or potential "disruptive physician" problems. With this in mind, a couple of things should generally be regarded as meeting the need for an affirmative answer to, 'anything in your past that could affect your ability to get a medical license'...

1. any record, or charges, or convictions for disorderly conduct, illicit substance purchasing/selling, illicit substance use, substance abuse, and DUI

2. any substance addiction (they will want you to explain circumstances, type and extent of treatment, etc...).

3. charges and/or findings of ~guilt of workplace abuse (i.e. psychological/hostile/intimidation/harassment, physicial or sexual abuse)

4. significant psychological disease, specifically anything with a manic component

5. ANY public record of....

As to #1 above, many state licensing boards want evidence and/or explanations for any traffic violation beyond simple speeding or parking. I have actually applied for licensing in states that wanted definitive explanations for even simple speeding violations. Anything that will require additional explanation/justification in licensing process = SOMETHING 'in your past that could affect your ability to get a medical license'

there can be plenty of "what if" and "not fair" debates.... save them for your attorney. This website is NOT an authority.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I just keep thinking back to that dismissed MIP/Baylor thread that was deleted a few weeks back and wonder if they would want something THAT specific as an answer for that question. In that particular instance, it seemed like the consensus was that it was okay he didn't mark anything on ERAS, but the fault came when Baylor (on a secondary piece of material given during an interview) asked about 'any charges ever' and he incorrectly answered no because they had been dismissed. What would be your opinion with regard to that situation (if you remember the thread I'm referring to) and this ERAS question??

 

[JackADeli]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I just keep thinking back to that dismissed MIP/Baylor thread that was deleted a few weeks back and wonder if they would want something THAT specific as an answer for that question. In that particular instance, it seemed like the consensus was that it was okay he didn't mark anything on ERAS, but the fault came when Baylor (on a secondary piece of material given during an interview) asked about 'any charges ever' and he incorrectly answered no because they had been dismissed. What would be your opinion with regard to that situation (if you remember the thread I'm referring to) and this ERAS question??

I remember the thread and contributed to it. There were several different things in that thread. I don't remember them all. I think there was an issue to completing a form at the interview vs what sort of verbal answers were given vs what the specific state licensing board told the applicant. Some states specifically state as a requirement for their license that you report all, including prior suspended sentences and/or sealed/dismissed.

The mistake in that thread or a similar was the belief that a promise from one state to ~seal a record, meant the applicant had no obligation to fully disclose in another state. You must meet all requirements specific to the state you seek a license. The individual state's license are independent of what agreement you may have with another state for some previous misadventure. If a state asks you to reveal prior deeds on or off your record, you have an ethical obligation to reveal or NOT apply for the states license if you do not want to reveal. Those are the terms of agreement.

I think, in general, you skate a fine line when you withhold something that can come back to bite you. Each state, in many ways, is a sovereign entity unto itself. My policy is be honest and fully disclose up front. IMP it is better to clear the playing board at the start vs risk a foul half way through the game that may result in an un-recoverable disqualification from further play.

 

[gutonc]

I'll give the Cliff's Notes version of what I posted in the deleted thread that Jagger and JAD are talking about.

This is NOT the time for "easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission."

If you have any concern that something in your past could conceivably be considered a "yes" to any question ERAS, a program, hospital or licensing board asks you then you should absolutely answer yes. Assuming it's not a felony violence/drug/child abuse/sexual abuse it is unlikely to prevent you from getting a license/job (although it may delay it and you may have to jump through hoops to get it).

If OTOH you answer no and it is later discovered that, as far as the board/employer is concerned, the answer should have been yes, you will lose your job, your license and possibly the ability to ever practice medicine anywhere in the US again.

So be up front and even overly forthcoming in this situation. You'll have to explain it and it may be embarrassing. And in the end, you'll probably get a pat on the back, a "don't do it again" and off you go.

 

[phallusequinas]

First question is whether this conduct is on your criminal record? In other words do you have a legal right to say that it never happened?

I will assume that the conduct occurred after you reached 18 and you did not take steps to expunge the charge from your record. If this is the case, you should disclose.

If you intend not to disclose, then you need to see an attorney to know what your rights are exactly.

In general, there are higher disclosure requirements for quasi-judicial organizations like a medical board versus a hospital.

If you are gunning for a competitive residency, any blemish could knock you out of contention. Getting the spot is only the first step. The program finding out that you did not reveal information later on could cause problems. Whether what they do after finding out is legal or not, negligent or not, or tortious or not is a massive complication that you may not want to deal with.

The answer to your question is not as simple as the other responses have stated. The least inexpensive response however is too just disclose and take your licks.

 

[JackADeli]

First question is whether this conduct is on your criminal record? In other words do you have a legal right to say that it never happened?...

In general, there are higher disclosure requirements for quasi-judicial organizations like a medical board versus a hospital...

And, when it comes to exercising your "right" to not disclose, the legitimate way is to NOT lie on an application. If an app asks a question, your exercising any "right" to not disclose is to NOT complete the application. You have a choice. Every choice has consequences. To falsely complete an application and sign on the line that you affirm/swear/etc... the contents in the application are true and complete to the best of your ability, you are not exercising some "right". So, exercising a "right" to privacy/etc... comes with the consequence of not being licensed if the license requires you to surrendar privacy as part of the deal.

 

[JaggerPlate]

And, when it comes to exercising your "right" to not disclose, the legitimate way is to NOT lie on an application. If an app asks a question, your exercising any "right" to not disclose is to NOT complete the application. You have a choice. Every choice has consequences. To falsely complete an application and sign on the line that you affirm/swear/etc... the contents in the application are true and complete to the best of your ability, you are not exercising some "right". So, exercising a "right" to privacy/etc... comes with the consequence of not being licensed if the license requires you to surrendar privacy as part of the deal.

This is the problem with that question though ...

Of course when asked honestly, everyone should ALWAYS answer honestly and explain. However, when someone asks 'is there ANYTHING in your past that could prevent you from doing X,' that's really not a cut and dry question and frankly, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[JackADeli]

...However, when someone asks 'is there ANYTHING in your past that could prevent you from doing X,' that's really not a cut and dry question and frankly, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Yes, in a general sense it would be vague. However, we are talking state medical license boards. Almost any violation of the law can hinder your ability to be licensed by a state. So, if you have violated the law in the past, particularly something you would rather keep securite, you have something to answer "yes". It is that simple and not really vague in that sense. Real good litmus test is, "do I think this past act if revealed to the license board may delay or hurt my ability to get licensed? Is there anything I did in the past that I want to keep hidden/securite because it may adversely impact my ability to be licensed?".

 

[JaggerPlate]

Yes, in a general sense it would be vague. However, we are talking state medical license boards. Almost any violation of the law can hinder your ability to be licensed by a state. So, if you have violated the law in the past, particularly something you would rather keep securite, you have something to answer "yes". It is that simple and not really vague in that sense. Real good litmus test is, "do I think this past act if revealed to the license board may delay or hurt my ability to get licensed? Is there anything I did in the past that I want to keep hidden/securite because it may adversely impact my ability to be licensed?".

My issue with the vagueness of the question (and let me be clear that I know I don't have anything in my past that would prevent me from getting a medical license) is not so much coming clean to a medical board, it's more the fact that residency programs could use the vagueness/broad nature of this question to judge an otherwise excellent candidate. This, to me, seems unfair.

If absolutely everything needs to be mentioned, then I can only assume that residency programs will see it before you even get to the licensing part of the whole game, and I HAVE to believe that someone, somewhere, in some program COULD be the type of person who would pre-maturely judge a candidate based off a 10 year old, alcohol ticket like in the Baylor example.

Frankly, when residency placement is on the line, I think it's advantageous to absolutely be forthcoming, but also to definitely make sure you are divulging when appropriate. I completely 100% understand the need to ask permission, not forgiveness, etc, but it's not so easy to follow through on these type of actions when the question is, frankly, very vague, and the outcome could conceivably affect one's chances at a given program.

 

[JackADeli]

...the fact that residency programs could use the vagueness/broad nature of this question to judge an otherwise excellent candidate. This, to me, seems unfair.

...I HAVE to believe that someone, somewhere, in some program COULD be the type of person who would pre-maturely judge a candidate based off a 10 year old, alcohol ticket like in the Baylor example...

Correct. It may be unfortunate and seem unfair to some but is just life. When individuals get into attending positions later, they can set better examples and different standards, etc... But for now, it may be unfair or may seem unfair, but is just life.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Correct. It may be unfortunate and seem unfair to some but is just life. When individuals get into attending positions later, they can set better examples and different standards, etc... But for now, it may be unfair or may seem unfair, but is just life.

Agreed. Having said that, I wonder how often a PD would actually judge a candidate for something like the Baylor situation. It would be interesting to see how often they would care about a '10 year old alcohol ticket' (as the guy in the Baylor thread put it) or if it's something that 90% of people would ignore. Additionally, it makes me wonder how many people would care AFTER the fact ... ie - you assume it isn't something that needs to be reported, the background check pings it up, how often would the PD agree that it's irrelevant and tell you to go back to work, and how often would he/she blow up and fire you??

 

[Noeljan]

Agreed. Having said that, I wonder how often a PD would actually judge a candidate for something like the Baylor situation. It would be interesting to see how often they would care about a '10 year old alcohol ticket' (as the guy in the Baylor thread put it) or if it's something that 90% of people would ignore. Additionally, it makes me wonder how many people would care AFTER the fact ... ie - you assume it isn't something that needs to be reported, the background check pings it up, how often would the PD agree that it's irrelevant and tell you to go back to work, and how often would he/she blow up and fire you??

I think the difference (even though I totally totally disagree with firing someone over something they did 10 years ago when they have obviously been successful since) is that in the Baylor thread I think they specifically stated in the interview "have you ever been arrested" and the OP said no (correct me if I am wrong). That is a more clear cut example and the OP could be arugued flat out lied (although OP i am no means judging you and if I were a PD I would have never been so extreme. Me thinks they may have been unhappy from the getgo of the match perhaps?). However in the second scenario it is not so clear cut and very open to interpretation. If you look at the medical license form it seems to list things across the board that would prevent one from obtaining a license (a felony in the last 5 years, something about sexual crimes, and something about medical fraud). I am no lawyer but I think in the second case it wouldn't be so easy to out someone if they replied no (if all they have is some drinking charge from 10 years ago). I am not saying it is right, but personally I find it a tad ridiculous that something like that should even matter. I am more weary of people that are so black and white "moral" about things, and anyone that would think one shouldn;t become a physician because of a one time thing from ones youth. Now, if someone was charged with several continuous crimes over a period of time that would be an entirely different story IMO (I am open minded but not that open minded, but you never know...or of course if someone was actually charged/convicted of sex crimes, medical fraud or felony in the last X years and then replied no knowing that medical license people clearly list these things).

 

[JackADeli]

Agreed. Having said that, I wonder how often a PD would actually judge a candidate for something like the Baylor situation. It would be interesting to see how often they would care about a '10 year old alcohol ticket' (as the guy in the Baylor thread put it) or if it's something that 90% of people would ignore...

The Baylor story, etc... seemed extreme or lacking of complete context/facts; which, is one of my concerns. The extreme, out of context/anecdote stories may tempt applicants to error and try to hide things that would otherwise be viewed as "learning experience" and youthful indiscretion that contrast how mature the individual is now. I can't speak to all programs. My experience during residency, interview applicant reviews, etc... things of that nature were often not thought of as a big deal when they came up if everything else looked great.

...Additionally, it makes me wonder how many people would care AFTER the fact ... ie - you assume it isn't something that needs to be reported, the background check pings it up...

This is another story. My experience and speaking to PDs and attendings alike, finding out an applicant lied via a background check upsets even the most forgiving. True or not, it appears as if you hid/lied to get ahead in life. This is in discussions I have seen extrapolated to what would you do in bad patient care situation? Hide or lie. What would you do in mal-practice? Lie to CYA and ... get ahead in life. Patients and colleagues in healthcare depend greatly on trust. The appearance that a trainee/soon to be colleague may have a propensity to lie for CYA is not a red flag... it is huge banner.

 

[Noeljan]

The Baylor story, etc... seemed extreme or lacking of complete context/facts; which, is one of my concerns. The extreme, out of context/anecdote stories may tempt applicants to error and try to hide things that would otherwise be viewed as "learning experience" and youthful indiscretion that contrast how mature the individual is now. I can't speak to all programs. My experience during residency, interview applicant reviews, etc... things of that nature were often not thought of as a big deal when they came up if everything else looked great.

agreed.

 

[gutonc]

This is another story. My experience and speaking to PDs and attendings alike, finding out an applicant lied via a background check upsets even the most forgiving. True or not, it appears as if you hid/lied to get ahead in life. This is in discussions I have seen extrapolated to what would you do in bad patient care situation? Hide or lie. What would you do in mal-practice? Lie to CYA and ... get ahead in life. Patients and colleagues in healthcare depend greatly on trust. The appearance that a trainee/soon to be colleague may have a propensity to lie for CYA is not a red flag... it is huge banner.

What he said...and basically what I said above.

Nobody is going to care about an isolated, 10yo MIP or other "kids being kids" type of charge as long as it's not a violent felony or part of a pattern. What they will care about is being lied to about it. I don't think that Baylor situation was in any way about the OP having an MIP or DUI or whatever the hell he had. It was about lying about it to the program. That's unforgivable.

 

[JaggerPlate]

What he said...and basically what I said above.

Nobody is going to care about an isolated, 10yo MIP or other "kids being kids" type of charge as long as it's not a violent felony or part of a pattern. What they will care about is being lied to about it. I don't think that Baylor situation was in any way about the OP having an MIP or DUI or whatever the hell he had. It was about lying about it to the program. That's unforgivable.

Yeah, I completely agree.

However (and I'm sorry I keep bringing this up), is a 10 year old MIP something that is 'anything from your past that could keep you from getting a medical license?' Ethically, everyone is saying to report it. In reality, it doesn't seem like an honest and legitimate answer to the question. I'm not arguing with the fact that it probably doesn't matter and that being viewed as dishonest in any way, shape, or form is far, far worse than explaining why you drank a beer in college 10 years ago, but it just seems silly to me to have a question that asks for 'anything' and then feel the need to disclose your life story, even if it doesn't pertain, simply in the interest in not being viewed as dishonest.

 

[Noeljan]

Yeah, I completely agree.

However (and I'm sorry I keep bringing this up), is a 10 year old MIP something that is 'anything from your past that could keep you from getting a medical license?' Ethically, everyone is saying to report it. In reality, it doesn't seem like an honest and legitimate answer to the question. I'm not arguing with the fact that it probably doesn't matter and that being viewed as dishonest in any way, shape, or form is far, far worse than explaining why you drank a beer in college 10 years ago, but it just seems silly to me to have a question that asks for 'anything' and then feel the need to disclose your life story, even if it doesn't pertain, simply in the interest in not being viewed as dishonest.

here is where I agree with you. I was pointing out that in the Baylor case it appeared more straightforward that he lied where they specifically asked "have you ever been arrested" (though like another poster stated for some reason I got a feelign something more to the story was left out)...In the eras example I don't think you could automatically say one was lying, since on the medical license (at least in my state) it clearly lists certain things that likely prevent one from obtaining a license (sex crimes, felony, medical fraud etc). In the sake of getting a straightforward answer, eras should eliminate the felony question and go via the Baylor route (though I inherently disagree with it) and not beat around the bush and ask a very straightforward question if they think it is so vital to determine if one should be a physician, say "have you ever been arrested for anything in your life"......makes it much easier👍

 

[JaggerPlate]

here is where I agree with you. I was pointing out that in the Baylor case it appeared more straightforward that he lied where they specifically asked "have you ever been arrested" (though like another poster stated for some reason I got a feelign something more to the story was left out)...In the eras example I don't think you could automatically say one was lying, since on the medical license (at least in my state) it clearly lists certain things that likely prevent one from obtaining a license (sex crimes, felony, medical fraud etc). In the sake of getting a straightforward answer, eras should eliminate the felony question and go via the Baylor route (though I inherently disagree with it) and not beat around the bush and ask a very straightforward question if they think it is so vital to determine if one should be a physician, say "have you ever been arrested for anything in your life"......makes it much easier👍

Agreed. Additionally, I will admit that the Baylor thread was just odd and seemed off in general, but it's what got me thinking about the residency applications in general and what led to the 'anything' question. I'm with you though ... if they are looking for something specific, they should ask for specific things or include a list of what they want, otherwise, you can essentially extrapolate indefinitely with that question. Hell, I used to fight with my little brother all the time when we were kids ... does this show a history of violence that could come creeping to the surface at some point and affect my ability to get a license/deal with patients? No, of course not, but 'anything' technically includes this scenario.

 

[Smurfette]

Yeah, I completely agree.

However (and I'm sorry I keep bringing this up), is a 10 year old MIP something that is 'anything from your past that could keep you from getting a medical license?' Ethically, everyone is saying to report it. In reality, it doesn't seem like an honest and legitimate answer to the question. I'm not arguing with the fact that it probably doesn't matter and that being viewed as dishonest in any way, shape, or form is far, far worse than explaining why you drank a beer in college 10 years ago, but it just seems silly to me to have a question that asks for 'anything' and then feel the need to disclose your life story, even if it doesn't pertain, simply in the interest in not being viewed as dishonest.

In general, an underage possession/underage drinking charge will not likely cause licensing issues. It could prompt a more detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding the charges before the license will be issued....as licensing bureaus are not exactly the quickest government agency, it *could* delay a license if they have to await supplemental information. I've never heard of someone being refused a license based on an underage ticket alone....but I suppose it could theoretically happen.

A DUI can very well cause licensing issues, especially if recent, due to it being a possible sign of physician impairment as well as poor judgment endangering safety of others. It would be state dependent as to how 'easy' or 'difficult' it will be to obtain a license; some may require alcohol assessment or rehab among other things, while others may simply issue the license.

 

[Noeljan]

Agreed. Additionally, I will admit that the Baylor thread was just odd and seemed off in general, but it's what got me thinking about the residency applications in general and what led to the 'anything' question. I'm with you though ... if they are looking for something specific, they should ask for specific things or include a list of what they want, otherwise, you can essentially extrapolate indefinitely with that question. Hell, I used to fight with my little brother all the time when we were kids ... does this show a history of violence that could come creeping to the surface at some point and affect my ability to get a license/deal with patients? No, of course not, but 'anything' technically includes this scenario.

agreed.

 

[shopsteward]

Agreed. Additionally, I will admit that the Baylor thread was just odd and seemed off in general, but it's what got me thinking about the residency applications in general and what led to the 'anything' question. I'm with you though ... if they are looking for something specific, they should ask for specific things or include a list of what they want, otherwise, you can essentially extrapolate indefinitely with that question. Hell, I used to fight with my little brother all the time when we were kids ... does this show a history of violence that could come creeping to the surface at some point and affect my ability to get a license/deal with patients? No, of course not, but 'anything' technically includes this scenario.

Also agreed. "Anything from your past which could prevent you from getting a medical licence?" is an uncertain question, with potentially devastating consequences if someone in authority decides, at any point during a residency lasting years, that it has been answered wrongly.

A further difficulty seems to me that the ERAS form may have to be filled in for applications in potentially many different States, but that the question "anything from your past which could prevent you from getting a medical licence?" can have different answers in different States, depending on the State requirement for disclosure. That then seems to require disclosure of every possible issue to the standards of the most rigorous licensing State, which would be difficult for a medical student to determine and might end up requiring disclosure which is unnecessarily harmful to applications in some States.

On the fighting with your brother example, perhaps a more realistic and difficult example would be someone who had sex when both they and their partner were underage. An accusation of sexual misconduct could be made many years later, and if made would seem likely to affect licensing. Should every ERAS applicant have to disclose their early sex life, just in case?

 

[JackADeli]

...However (and I'm sorry I keep bringing this up), is a 10 year old MIP something that is 'anything from your past that could keep you from getting a medical license?' Ethically, everyone is saying to report it. In reality, it doesn't seem like an honest and legitimate answer to the question...

I appreciate you may not like the answer to that same question over and over again. Yes, it may seem or may even be unfair. But the answer is YES. Some states specifically ask about that sort of thing on licensing. If you answer yes, some states will delay and/or hold up your license. So, YES it does in certain states represent something that increases your difficulty in being licensed. Answering 'YES' under those circumstances is in no way dishonest or illegitimate. However, answering 'NO' on ERAS [servicing ALL states] would be dishonest.

...Hell, I used to fight with my little brother all the time when we were kids ... does this show a history of violence that could come creeping to the surface at some point and affect my ability to get a license/deal with patients? No, of course not, but 'anything' technically includes this scenario.

Seriously? You look at the question and believe it somehow should apply to even the rough-housing of children?

Sure, if you are arrested for assaulting your brother or neighbors or school mates or expelled from school or etc... maybe it will creep into things later and some can with good reason infer a history of violence. I appreciate individuals want to find every exception at the extremes. But, the stretching scenarios to their extreme is just silly and distracts from what can be reasonable and/or common sense.

Yes, words like "significant" and "serious" and even "relavent" can be subjective.... sure, there are no "absolutes". But, ultimately, we are supposed to be physicians with some common sense and ability to make an honest, adult, firm decision. Our ability to think and be accountable is expected to be of a higher caliber beyond simply trying to rationalize and find extremes of exceptions to the rule to ~somehow excuse an act that is not much/if any extreme stretch? Such hunts for exotic exceptions is either an exercise in debate or represents some sort of excessive panic.

...A further difficulty seems to me that the ERAS form may have to be filled in for applications in potentially many different States... That then seems to require disclosure of every possible issue to the standards of the most rigorous licensing State, which would be difficult for a medical student to determine and might end up requiring disclosure which is unnecessarily harmful to applications in some States.

Yes, you have to presume your ERAS answer is for EVERY state you are applying to but particularly for whatever state may be most stringent. If your answer may some how be harmful to your application in a global sense... I dare say it is a no brainer that the information requires disclosure.

...perhaps a more realistic and difficult example would be someone who had sex when both they and their partner were underage. An accusation of sexual misconduct could be made many years later, and if made would seem likely to affect licensing. Should every ERAS applicant have to disclose their early sex life, just in case?

Again, seeking the extremes of exceptions. A pair of underage teens have sex. Now, at age 21, 25, 28 concerned that a sexual misconduct charge can be brought? If you engaged in sexual conduct that was illegal and/or you seriously believe can result in a charge of sexual misconduct 5, 10, 15 years later, I guess you should report it. You may also want to submit a copy of the hustler forum and say, "I did all that too".

Come on, really? I would say in reference to your childhood sexual escapades, you need to decide if you engaged in something wrong by your standards? by societal standards? If you have any lingering concerns you can speak to an attorney about it and ask about statues and limitations.

 

[JaggerPlate]

JAD,

The point people are trying to make is that the nature of the question is absurdly vague, and leaving it up to 'common sense' or being 'responsible' and 'mature' is blatantly subjective. I'm truthfully not trying to re-ask the same question until I get an answer I want to hear, I just think it's interesting to garner input on this question and it's funny to hear people say the same thing. If you're going to anecdotally ask for 'anything,' then I think you should be prepared for 'anything' in the answers.

Unless they give a list of X things they want to hear or Y qualifier that makes something reportable, it's all up for interpretation. Additionally, my concern this entire time has not been the inability to become licensed. My issue is the fact that ERAS asks this question, which as I explained is very, very vague, and residency programs see your answers far before inviting you for an interview, ranking you at their program, and THEN asking you get a license.

Additionally, it's my understanding that during the licensing process is when they truly ask for 'everything,' but at this point in time you are already in the residency program.

So, I'm not worried about divulging to the licensing board; I'm not actually worried about my ability to obtain a license; what I'm worried about is the extremely vague nature of this question, what type of answers they are even looking for (which appears to be 100% up for interpretation), and how divulging something (whether it's necessary or not) can affect one's chances at residency.

If you feel like I'm simply repeating myself over and over again until I get the response I'm looking for (I don't personally feel this way), then I apologize and you don't have to continue responding. I've sent a few select PMs and think I may anonymously email ERAS (or something) to get some direct answers.

 

[JackADeli]

First, no apology is really needed or warranted. I appreciate your reaffirmation via apology to express sincerity of concern.

...the nature of the question is absurdly vague, and leaving it up to 'common sense' or being 'responsible' and 'mature' is blatantly subjective. ...If you're going to anecdotally ask for 'anything,' then I think you should be prepared for 'anything' in the answers...

I guess the how "absurd" it actually is really is also quite subjective. Is it vague or subjective? Sure. But, can anything honestly be all encompassing and specific, really? No. That is life. It is also the reality accross professional life. The question is not that difficult. Yes, we can use absurd "what if scenarios" about childhood rough housing.... maybe = propensity towards violence or two minors dating and having sex ~consentual, maybe a charge of sexual misconduct... Yes, we can pull all those extremes of examples. But, those are not the gist of the topic. The primary focus is specifically of prior boughts of illegality and/or other issues that can be considered in determining future function and safety as a professional, i.e. physician. There are high standards because the stakes in healthcare are very, very high. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Is it hard to be honest in completing the app? No. It only becomes hard/complicated when seeking excuses and ratiionalizations to omit/fail to disclose information. And, I would submit, if you are engaging in any rationalization or mental gymnastics to omit/fail to disclose, it should be obvious that information should likely be disclosed. The repeated undertone in this thread seems more of can I "avoid disclosing". IMHO, the question generates from one that is concerned and appreciates what is being asked and just seeking a loop hole to avoid. I just don't see that as vague.

And, yes, they are prepared for you to answer and disclose anything. The app is not limiting your ability to disclose. One should not try to "help" ERAS or state licensing boards by not providing "excessive" or "unnecessary" information. Just disclose or don't and accept accountability for the choice to not disclose. That is your option.

...it's my understanding that during the licensing process is when they truly ask for 'everything,' but at this point in time you are already in the residency program.

So, I'm not worried about divulging to the licensing board; I'm not actually worried about my ability to obtain a license; what I'm worried about is ... how divulging something (whether it's necessary or not) can affect one's chances at residency...

Correct, licensing impact becomes clear after a match. Thus, ERAS asks well before the match. That is the point. A residency should not effectively match an ~unqualified candidate. So, each residency needs full disclosure to assure nobody in their incoming class will have difficulty getting license or delay in licensure. If you have past deeds that you are concerned will disuade a particular program from accepting you, the program needs to know it. Period. It is innapropriate to get into a program under false pretense that you otherwise would not get into. It doesn't matter that one may think, ~"I lie now and then prove later that I have overcome the previous deeds that would have excluded me". The premise of that position is that one is building a relationship on a lie and one is obtaining something/getting ahead in life by lying.

...ultimately, we are supposed to be physicians with some common sense and ability to make an honest, adult, firm decision. Our ability to think and be accountable is expected to be of a higher caliber beyond simply trying to rationalize and find extremes of exceptions to the rule to ~somehow excuse an act that is not much/if any extreme stretch? Such hunts for exotic exceptions is either an exercise in debate or represents some sort of excessive panic...

 

[JaggerPlate]

First, no apology is really needed or warranted. I appreciate your reaffirmation via apology to express sincerity of concern.I guess the how "absurd" it actually is really is also quite subjective. Is it vague or subjective? Sure. But, can anything honestly be all encompassing and specific, really? No. That is life. It is also the reality accross professional life. The question is not that difficult. Yes, we can use absurd "what if scenarios" about childhood rough housing.... maybe = propensity towards violence or two minors dating and having sex ~consentual, maybe a charge of sexual misconduct... Yes, we can pull all those extremes of examples. But, those are not the gist of the topic. The primary focus is specifically of prior boughts of illegality and/or other issues that can be considered in determining future function and safety as a professional, i.e. physician. There are high standards because the stakes in healthcare are very, very high. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. Is it hard to be honest in completing the app? No. It only becomes hard/complicated when seeking excuses and ratiionalizations to omit/fail to disclose information. And, I would submit, if you are engaging in any rationalization or mental gymnastics to omit/fail to disclose, it should be obvious that information should likely be disclosed. The repeated undertone in this thread seems more of can I "avoid disclosing". IMHO, the question generates from one that is concerned and appreciates what is being asked and just seeking a loop hole to avoid. I just don't see that as vague.

And, yes, they are prepared for you to answer and disclose anything. The app is not limiting your ability to disclose. One should not try to "help" ERAS or state licensing boards by not providing "excessive" or "unnecessary" information. Just disclose or don't and accept accountability for the choice to not disclose. That is your option.Correct, licensing impact becomes clear after a match. Thus, ERAS asks well before the match. That is the point. A residency should not effectively match an ~unqualified candidate. So, each residency needs full disclosure to assure nobody in their incoming class will have difficulty getting license or delay in licensure. If you have past deeds that you are concerned will disuade a particular program from accepting you, the program needs to know it. Period. It is innapropriate to get into a program under false pretense that you otherwise would not get into. It doesn't matter that one may think, ~"I lie now and then prove later that I have overcome the previous deeds that would have excluded me". The premise of that position is that one is building a relationship on a lie and one is obtaining something/getting ahead in life by lying.

JAD,

I really appreciate your time and input, but I think we're running around in circles here and should probably stop because we're arguing two different things:

-you're saying that if anyone even has to question whether or not they need to answer 'yes' to some type of application question, then they should put yes because applications are straightforward and any questions or justifications are probably looking for a way to avoid disclosing something.

-what I'm saying is that this question is not straightforward whatsoever unless they give a specific list or a referral to said state medical board to obtain a list of what can and cannot keep you from obtaining a medical license/privileges. If you don't understand or know, are you just supposed to disclose everything you can think of even if it may be unwarranted and hurt you in some other way, shape, or form??? To me, this sounds like a question that needs to be sorted out or clarified.

I understand that you come from a place where you've been through this, seen these types of situations before, etc. Additionally, you're probably 100% correct that little incidents (10 year old alcohol tickets) should just be disclosed to programs who will PROBABLY not hold it against you or judge you accordingly. However, the question is still pretty severe, and disclosing any information in the 'Yes, I may have trouble getting licensed box' and then explaining it's because you drank a beer outside at 19 is still a pretty big deal IMO.

I'm not going to sit here and wish for scenarios where they would clarify the question or be 'fair,' or whatever else, but I won't sit here and say that it's a simply 'yes/no' question or concede that you should use it as some confessional box for things that probably don't quite fall under the umbrella of licensing issues, but possibly should be mentioned to programs because it could pop up in a background check (as dismissed or whatever)/simply because you want to be honest.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound like more justification.

 

[JackADeli]

...what I'm saying is that this question is not straightforward whatsoever unless they give a specific list or a referral to said state medical board to obtain a list of what can and cannot keep you from obtaining a medical license/privileges. If you don't understand or know, are you just supposed to disclose everything you can think of even if it may be unwarranted and hurt you in some other way, shape, or form???...

I understand what you are saying. your're right in that we may just have to agree to disagree.

My perspective is quite simple... the question is NOT complicated. Aside from medicine, go into ANY major profession private sector or military or government employment (local, state, fed, etc...), you are NOT going to get an exhaustive list to check off in applying. It is not going to happen and general questions are not just acceptable but are in fact the norm. The expectation will be that intelligent, educated professionals can handle general questions [without an exhaustive check off list] and use common sense comensurate with their level of intellect and/or education. Yes, that assumption can prove to be a mistake in some individuals.

Further, the need/demand for an exhaustive list is generally viewed as suspect. Such a requirement implies or suggests a need to find an absence of the specific one may hope to avoid disclosing. If one has nothing to hide then you do not need a specific list. The position of, "if it may be unwarranted and hurt you in some other way" just further strengthens that baseline concern and suggestion that one may be looking for a loop hole or avoid disclosing... and is aware of this thus asking the question and looking for a list... to enable/justify avoidance of disclosure.

...I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound like more justification.

Again, I understand what you are saying. My point is that the question is just not complicated. It is straightforward. If you have something you are concerned may adversely impact your application and/or license, disclose it... and write in the explanation you explanation to help mitigate any potential adverse impact.

Finally, lest anyone get confused, I am not saying "you" specific Jagger. I am replying in general terms to the question and in knowing saying YOU have any particular issues/problems.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Aside from medicine, go into ANY major profession private sector or military or government employment (local, state, fed, etc...), you are NOT going to get an exhaustive list to check off in applying. It is not going to happen and general questions are not just acceptable but are in fact the norm. The expectation will be that intelligent, educated professionals can handle general questions [without an exhaustive check off list] and use common sense comensurate with their level of intellect and/or education. Yes, that assumption can prove to be a mistake in some individuals.

My mother is a teacher, and I've seen the type of background check/reports she had to do ... very specific and very clear about what they were asking. My dad does sales, and he (after an individual at his work was let go for an alcohol related issue) has told me very clearly that he had to sign a cut and dry contract when beginning his job that essentially outlined what would be deemed inappropriate and what wouldn't be.

Additionally, I've applied/worked at several hospitals and have gone through the medical school process, and I can assure you that even the most REACHING secondary questions did not ask for 'anything.'

It's simply too subjective to assume that we, as professionals, should inherently know what to include and what not to include with regard to these sorts of questions, and frankly, relying on these types of assumptions and dismissing clear, cut, objective data is something that's normally quite frowned upon in medicine.

Further, the need/demand for an exhaustive list is generally viewed as suspect. Such a requirement implies or suggests a need to find an absence of the specific one may hope to avoid disclosing. If one has nothing to hide then you do not need a specific list.

JAD, I definitely get your point - it's a straightforward question and if you have ANY doubt, divulge what you're concerned about. Any attempt to justify is suspect.

However, this simply isn't the case. It's foolish to assume that one should divulge certain information if it's not relevant to the question (and in this instance, it's very difficult to tell what's relevant in 'anything'), and you can call it 'selfish,' 'sneaky,' 'dishonest,' etc, but it's simply smart to answer honestly when asked, but clarify and not explain unnecessary issues when it isn't relevant. It's very easy to say 'divulge everything,' when you aren't in the situation, but explaining something that will 100% NOT keep you from obtaining a license, but could potentially affect your chances at a program simply because one feels it's the ethical thing to do, is questionable in my book.

It is straightforward. If you have something you are concerned may adversely impact your application and/or license, disclose it... and write in the explanation you explanation to help mitigate any potential adverse impact.

You're actually making my point here that a. the question is not straightforward and b. divulging unnecessary information can be questionable:

as you state 'adversely impact your application and/or license,' and automatically infer that anything that could be conceived as 'reportable' to a program for any reason is something that would affect your ability to obtain a medical license. The truth of the matter is that there are probably a lot of issues that could be made known to a program that would actually have 0 affect on your ability to get a license, and this means that you aren't answering the question in the first place. You're viewing this question as - divulge anything negative in your past. That's NOT what it's asking. It's asking whether there is anything in your past that could prevent you from getting a medical license. If so, clarify.

Has there ever been a case where a med school grad was denied a license in ANY state because he/she disclosed a dismissed minor in possession alcohol ticket to the board? If not, then no ... there is absolutely no precedent here and it wouldn't affect your ability to obtain a license.

Is this something that YOU feel is 'something' from the past that should be explained to a program? Yes. However, this question, again, is NOT asking about that ... it's asking about the license. If a program is interested in these types of issues, then they should ask a question that deals with these types of issues and avoids the potential confusion by a question that actually deals with licensing.

Frankly, I think you're not seeing any sort of distinction between the two issues, and this is where the confusion and lack of 'straightforward' comes into play.

 

[JackADeli]

My mother is a teacher, and I've seen the type of background check/reports she had to do ... very specific and very clear about what they were asking. My dad does sales, and he ...has told me very clearly that he had to sign a cut and dry contract when beginning his job that essentially outlined what would be deemed inappropriate and what wouldn't be.

Additionally, I've applied/worked at several hospitals and have gone through the medical school process, and I can assure you that even the most REACHING secondary questions did not ask for 'anything.'...

Your correct, they may have a list of SOME specifics. However, and maybe my experience is completely different then yours, your mother's, or your father's; but the list I have answered were not exhaustive. In dealing with multiple state med-boards, multiple hospitals, private and government back ground checks extending as far as even FBI background checks, all had a generalized component.... it usually was something like "anything else" or "any other" or "anything" or "something not otherwise listed that may...".

So, an exhaustive list, to my experience does not exist and is not used. There is always, again in my experience, a global "generalized net" phrase used for all "other" things not listed in our list..... No major institution or body I am aware of restricts themselves to an all encompassing list of that nature. So Eras asks specifically to actual ~felonies/convictions, etc... as their specific short list and and then, like everyone/everywhere else I have seen throws a general catchment net.

Is "anything" too vague as opposed to "something not otherwise listed..." or "any other..."??? No, I don't think so. I think this is just getting hung up too much and trying to over complicate it. But, we will just have to agree to disagree. You find the question to vague to answer thus to difficult to answer; I do not.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Your correct, they may have a list of SOME specifics. However, and maybe my experience is completely different then yours, your mother's, or your father's; but the list I have answered were not exhaustive. In dealing with multiple state med-boards, multiple hospitals, private and government back ground checks extending as far as even FBI background checks, all had a generalized component.... it usually was something like "anything else" or "any other" or "anything" or "something not otherwise listed that may...".

So, an exhaustive list, to my experience does not exist and is not used. There is always, again in my experience, a global "generalized net" phrase used for all "other" things not listed in our list..... No major institution or body I am aware of restricts themselves to an all encompassing list of that nature. So Eras asks specifically to actual ~felonies/convictions, etc... as their specific short list and and then, like everyone/everywhere else I have seen throws a general catchment net.

Is "anything" too vague as opposed to "something not otherwise listed..." or "any other..."??? No, I don't think so. I think this is just getting hung up too much and trying to over complicate it. But, we will just have to agree to disagree. You find the question to vague to answer thus to difficult to answer; I do not.

Yeah. I think the problem with ERAS' 'anything else,' (because like you said, these exist in lots of forms) is that it asks anything else that would PREVENT you from getting a medical license, not 'anything you think programs should be aware about that wasn't covered by felony question?'

Maybe the 'prevent' question is essentially there way of asking it, but it just sounds HARSH, and I think it takes a lot for someone with small, past issues (like the 10 year old alcohol, Baylor ticket thing) to mark yes, and essentially tell a program that I may have trouble getting a license ... BUT, let me explain. I personally feel like some programs may trash you at 'issues getting a license,' before they would even read that you marked this for a decade old MIP and roll their eyes that you even bothered to put it.

 

[JackADeli]

...Maybe the 'prevent' question is essentially there way of asking it, but it just sounds HARSH, and I think it takes a lot for someone with small, past issues (like the 10 year old alcohol, Baylor ticket thing) to mark yes, and essentially tell a program that I may have trouble getting a license ... BUT, let me explain. I personally feel like some programs may trash you at 'issues getting a license,' before they would even read that you marked this for a decade old MIP and roll their eyes that you even bothered to put it.

I think, again, alot of panic and over read into it. It may or may not be harsh. Throughout this discussion a theme continues.... that is, ~it is unfair ~harsh and fear ~that honesty will hurt the application. IMHO, the panic and over read is the result of, deep down, individuals do understand what is being asked. It is not because they are just so confused and it is just so vague as to not understand what is being asked. The claim for ~ignorance or lack of understanding is, IMHO, at its base just a defense mechanism to avoid the question. A question, which some are afraid, if answered honestly, accurately and completely, "programs may trash [application]" . That position/concern screams a reasonable understanding of the question, not confusion or lack of clarity.

As to that fear or possible panic, yes, some PDs may want a pure virgin to sacrifice to their programs alter. However, the majority of programs I have known or colleagues have known have their curiosity peaked by an affirmative answer to the question and do proceed to read the explantion. In the vast stack of apps, that affirmative with the subsequent explanation may, for better or worse, be the only moment of interest in app review.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I think, again, alot of panic and over read into it. It may or may not be harsh. Throughout this discussion a theme continues.... that is, ~it is unfair ~harsh and fear ~that honesty will hurt the application. IMHO, the panic and over read is the result of, deep down, individuals do understand what is being asked. It is not because they are just so confused and it is just so vague as to not understand what is being asked. The claim for ~ignorance or lack of understanding is, IMHO, at its base just a defense mechanism to avoid the question. A question, which some are afraid, if answered honestly, accurately and completely, "programs may trash [application]" . That position/concern screams a reasonable understanding of the question, not confusion or lack of clarity.

I definitely think you've explained your opinion quite well, but I still stand behind the fact that it's confusing. Answer me this, honestly and without some type of google search:

Can a decade old, dismissed ticket for minor in possession of alcohol (a la Baylor) prevent me from obtaining a medical license in any of the 50 states of the union?

If you, or you as a MS-4, could answer that question as easy as a 'DOB,' 'SSN,' question on the ERAS, then I think you may just be smarter than me 😀

As to that fear or possible panic, yes, some PDs may want a pure virgin to sacrifice to their programs alter. However, the majority of programs I have known or colleagues have known have their curiosity peaked by an affirmative answer to the question and do proceed to read the explantion. In the vast stack of apps, that affirmative with the subsequent explanation may, for better or worse, be the only moment of interest in app review.

Yeah, I kind of assume that 90% of people would read it and honestly not care (and, like you said, maybe even think it's interesting/something that sticks out in the mind that it was actually included). Altogether, the individuals who would toss it probably wouldn't be a good program fit as well (I guess).

 

[JackADeli]

...Answer me this, honestly and without some type of google search:

Can a decade old, dismissed ticket for minor in possession of alcohol (a la Baylor) prevent me from obtaining a medical license in any of the 50 states of the union?...

Without a google search, to the best of my knowledge, the answer is 'YES'. Will it? Probably not. However, there are states that specifically ask about such things and while not preventing, will increase complexity in application, i.e. ~make it difficult. Can I name specific states? No. I do recall reading that California is strick on these things. I don't have a license from Cali and never applied so I can't speak specifically to it. But, I can say I have been licensed in states that specifically ask ~" have you ever been charged" and ~"have there been any dismissed or expunged charges"..... So, again, yes, IMHO, there are states that will require that information and such a circumstance will increase your difficulty to get licensed and may cause you to be UNABLE to be licensed in time to start day one at you residency.... probably get licensed but start a week to a month late.

Now, I will do a google search on Cali license....

 

[JackADeli]

Did google search of "california medical license and dismissed charges expunged charges"

... After expungement, when a criminal background check is done that searches for CONVICTIONS, the record will NOT show up because it is no longer a CONVICTION. That being said, the arrest still remains on the record, as there is a difference between expungement and sealing an arrest...With a background check, if your record has been expunged, the criminal conviction will not be apparent even if a previous arrest might be. It will simply show as a record of arrest with no conviction. Although the criminal record has been expunged, the remaining arrest could also prove as a hindrance in landing a job...

Also, I dare say in 2011 if a pre-med or med-student can obtain an answer via quick google search, not that tough a question to answer. He/she could search all 50 states if they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement

...Petition for Expungement
California's expungement law permits someone convicted of a crime file a Petition for Dismissal[7] with the court to re-open the case, set aside the plea, and dismiss the case.[8] In order for one to qualify for expungement, the petitioner must have completed probation, paid all fines and restitution, and not currently be charged with a crime.[8] If the requirements are met for eligibility, a court may grant the petition if it finds that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.[8] A successful expungement will not erase the criminal record, but rather the finding of guilt will be changed to a dismissal.[8] The petitioner then can honestly and legally answer to a question about their criminal history, with some exceptions, that they have not been convicted of that crime.[8] What is actually stated on the record of the case is that the case was dismissed after conviction. If the petitioner is later convicted of the same crime again, then the expungement may be reversed...

Did a google search of "California Medical Board" found this under applicant, Q&A:

...Do I have to get fingerprinted?
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Yes. In California, the process is completed using Live Scan, which is an electronic fingerprinting process. Your prints will be sent to both the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI to search for any criminal history. Out-of-state applicants can submit the traditional paper fingerprint cards or come to California to use Live Scan.....

...Must I disclose all criminal convictions, even minor offenses in college?
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]You must disclose all convictions as well as all cases in which you pled guilty or .[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]nolo contendere..[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial], even if they have been expunged pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code. This includes all citations, infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. .
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Applicants should be aware that the Board receives information regarding actions that have been dismissed or expunged, and the application forms advise applicants to disclose all prior convictions including those that have been dismissed or expunged. In addition, the Board will be notified of all future criminal actions through subsequent rap sheets by the DOJ and/or the FBI. .
[FONT=Arial,Arial]If you are uncertain about how to answer any question on the application, you should consult legal counsel. It may be wiser to disclose too much information than to be caught in a misunderstanding......

That was just Cali and took me no more then 3 minutes. Any ERAS applicant can search the states specific to where he/she may want to train and/or practice. And, those interested can read the California med-license on-line. They not only speak/ask to questions of legal priors but also to substance/chemical issues and psych issues too.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Without a google search, to the best of my knowledge, the answer is 'YES'. Will it? Probably not.

Kind of my point though. My guess is that your knowledge, prior to the google search, was a combination of opinion and assumption.

Now, if I asked you if you could provide your social security number, DOB, age, year of graduation, etc, without any essence of opinion, uncertainty, or to the 'best of your knowledge,' my guess is that there would be no room for discussion. These are straightforward questions.

However, there are states that specifically ask about such things and while not preventing, will increase complexity in application, i.e. ~make it difficult. Can I name specific states? No. I do recall reading that California is strick on these things. I don't have a license from Cali and never applied so I can't speak specifically to it. But, I can say I have been licensed in states that specifically ask ~" have you ever been charged" and ~"have there been any dismissed or expunged charges"..... So, again, yes, IMHO, there are states that will require that information and such a circumstance will increase your difficulty to get licensed and may cause you to be UNABLE to be licensed in time to start day one at you residency.... probably get licensed but start a week to a month late.

Now, I will do a google search on Cali license....

CA and TX are the ones that I've heard want to know the most, but, again, and as you said, these 'increase complexity,' not bar one from obtaining a license. Additionally, I think CA states just to absolutely divulge everything when you're applying for a license, but I don't think the board makes any comments about the ERAS application (not that they would anyway).

Furthermore, I've heard expungement discussed many times on these boards, and the general consensus, from what I can gather, is that it's essentially worthless. Something, somewhere (like the arrest record, for example) will still pop up, and you'll still have to explain that (and explaining an arrest without explaining what happened and the result is pretty much impossible).

I think my point here is that despite everything else:

1. A situation like the Baylor incident is not sufficient to keep someone from getting a license, even in a state like CA/TX, ergo it TECHNICALLY (I'm not actually saying to do this) wouldn't be a valid answer to the ERAS licensing question and

2. Because of the fact that the answer to the question initially was based on assumption and required further research (which is still, in my opinion, pretty inconclusive), it's really not a very straightforward question.

 

[JaggerPlate]

JAD,

When it's all said and done, I think it's simply safer to disclose everything (especially if the incident is minor and will not likely affect you) and this is what I would personally advise anyone in this situation to do.

However, I would like to point out that the information you're pulling from the CA medical board (which is clearly very, very detailed - parking tickets are classified as 'infractions') is still related to the license and not necessarily the ERAS question.

If you're suggesting that one should research the license requirements in the specific state where they MAY end up obtaining a license (and use this to answer the question), then I think one would still need to contact ERAS and clarify that it's appropriate to extrapolate the licensing divulging criteria to the ERAS application and then act accordingly.

In fact, this is probably the easiest, best thing to do all around, and should hopefully end our run-around here !

 

[JackADeli]

Kind of my point though. My guess is that your knowledge, prior to the google search, was a combination of opinion and assumption.

Now, if I asked you if you could provide your social security number, DOB, age, year of graduation, etc, without any essence of opinion, uncertainty, or to the 'best of your knowledge,' my guess is that there would be no room for discussion. These are straightforward questions.

CA and TX are the ones that I've heard want to know the most, but, again, and as you said, these 'increase complexity,' not bar one from obtaining a license. Additionally, I think CA states just to absolutely divulge everything when you're applying for a license, but I don't think the board makes any comments about the ERAS application (not that they would anyway)...

Just a few final points.
1. I can only answer "to the best of my knowledge" because even the states I am licensed in or have been licensed in I do not memorize the lenghty app. Someone not answering definitive like an "expert in all" does not demonstrate ambiguity of a question...
2. I haven't filled out an ERAS app in well over a decade or two. So, I don't know the exact phrasing if it is absolute prevent you from licensure or hamper, i.e. make difficult to get a license. I will leave that to the current ERAS folks.
3. Aside from the question you are debating or the street address, DOB or etc... There are plenty (at least when I filled out the app) questions that I needed some clarification via ERAS or sorry internet search on dial-up at that time. That is not unusual on any complex app. In filing for med licenses I have called the boards for clarification on numerous occassions. It doesn't necessarily mean the question is just too confusing. The question in debate hear, depending on its current form can probably be clarified by a rapid, high speed internet search.

....I think my point here is that despite everything else:

1. A situation like the Baylor incident is not sufficient to keep someone from getting a license, even in a state like CA/TX, ergo it TECHNICALLY (I'm not actually saying to do this) wouldn't be a valid answer to the ERAS licensing question and...

Just not sure that to be the case and it does depend on what the actual ERAS question is.... i.e. prevent, prevent timely, i.e. by regular start day of reseidency, and/or hinder/make difficult????

...When it's all said and done, I think it's simply safer to disclose everything (especially if the incident is minor and will not likely affect you) and this is what I would personally advise anyone in this situation to do...

Agreed👍

...I would like to point out that the information you're pulling from the CA medical board (which is clearly very, very detailed - parking tickets are classified as 'infractions') is still related to the license and not necessarily the ERAS question...

Understood. However, if the question via ERAS(i.e. not a licensing body) is specifically asking the applicant if they have something that will impact their interaction with a licensing body... I would suggest the applicant take the time to actually find out what the licensing bodies criteria are. Once you are in medicine, you are ~big leagues. You no longer have the youthful benefit to simply claim ignorance. There is an expectation that physicians are capable of some simple research; especially when it comes to their own career.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Understood. However, if the question via ERAS(i.e. not a licensing body) is specifically asking the applicant if they have something that will impact their interaction with a licensing body... I would suggest the applicant take the time to actually find out what the licensing bodies criteria are. Once you are in medicine, you are ~big leagues. You no longer have the youthful benefit to simply claim ignorance. There is an expectation that physicians are capable of some simple research; especially when it comes to their own career.

Yeah, like I said before, it's probably best to check with all the state medical boards beforehand, then contact ERAS with that information to make sure they recommend using it to answer the question, THEN answer the question accordingly. However, if I just sat down to fill out an ERAS app one day, I definitely wouldn't have realized the need to do this.

 

[JackADeli]

Yeah, like I said...

Good discussion.👍 I hope it helps others.

I think one of the most important things individuals aspiring for a medical career can do is mature their perspectives and take ownership of their future/career. It is a transition to such thinking. It is a change to a more pro-active approach and acceptance that "I didn't realize" or defense via ignorance is no longer acceptable. Many rewards still exist in a medical career but they come with costs and sacrifice that includes higher societal expectations, greater accountability and less room for expecting others to be accountable for your choices. Medicine trains you and prepares you with experience and knowledge to hold the lives of others in your hands. With that comes the expectation that you will accept responsibility for your choices, actions & life....

 

[danzman]

At my school we once had a lecture about things that could prevent you from getting a license with an attorney (school has a law dept also). At the end of the discussion it became apparent that it is totally up to the current board of medicine and is subject to change from year to year. One thing that was brought up was a juvenile felony offense. Say if you, at the ripe age of fourteen, had been caught with a case of beer would that impact your ability to practice medicine ? What about if it was a joint? Or what if you had committed manslaughter? We were told, specifically, that the state boards of medicine COULD NOT look at juvenile offenses when determining eligibility BUT, you were still required to disclose any arrests. Also it was pointed out that for an expunged juvenile issue, there would only be a record of the arrest and not the outcome of the trial, probation, etc’. This is obviously a slippery slope as I can envision s situation in which someone had committed an honest-to-goodness felony (murder, arson, rape etc’) but could make the argument that they were a child and should not be judged for it. That said, it could easily be argued that a person with multiple arrests or a single felony, even a child, could pose a theoretical threat and should not be able to practice medicine.

 

[JackADeli]

...One thing that was brought up was a juvenile felony offense...

I appreciate your point but it seems like you are trying to rehash the enire discussion.

Yes, it is possible that a state med-boar and the FBI background check may not uncover your juvenile arrests or convictions. The issue is not can they find it. The issue is answering the licensing question honestly and completely or choosing to lie. The question asked are ~have you EVER had ANY.... charges/convictions/etc.... The question doesn't ask about ~any that we can find or are in public record.

This question is as much about a test of ethics/honesty as it is a background querry. If one feels they can lie about actual past criminal conduct/substance abuse/psych issues because the board won't find it in routine FBI search, they are failing the test, they are lying.

We can come up with all kinds of rationalization/justification if we choose. But, if you put a lie on the app and sign at the end of the app that ~you assert to completely and honestly completing the app, you have lied and committed an act of fraud. It doesn't matter if it was just a small joint... cause that is not your call.

 

[JaggerPlate]

JAD,

It's definitely all about disclosure, I think the biggest 'issue' people are having (and why this thread has been bumped again) is that people don't know when/where to share this info. For example, I think it's pretty clear that I believe the ERAS 'anything' question is a weird place to discuss a juvenile felony (like Dan was talking about), but I do think it's something that will probably pop up in a background check, so programs should know about it BEFOREHAND.

When and how you tell them is the question I think people are having issues with.

 

[JackADeli]

...It's definitely all about disclosure, I think the biggest 'issue' people are having (and why this thread has been bumped again) is that people don't know when/where to share this info. For example, I think it's pretty clear that I believe the ERAS 'anything' question is a weird place to discuss a juvenile felony (like Dan was talking about), but I do think it's something that will probably pop up in a background check, so programs should know about it BEFOREHAND...

Weird or not, the "when to" is dictated by the app, before match. One does not get to withhold info, until after the match, when the program is stuck with what they got or accept one body less via disqualification. The ERAS app asks for an honest and complete answer. If someone is unsure their prior criminal or such conduct will hinder/hamper/delay their ability to get licensed.... do a google search. It isn't that hard. The dancing around about "when to" disclose demonstrates an understanding of the question and more importantly the implications of what an accurate/honest response may signifiy. The gist of this dance is:

~"sure, it should be disclosed, but after the match, when I am already accepted to a position, at which point I have alittle leverage and the programs options of holding it against me are limited".

That is just dishonest. If ERAS asks about anything/something/other things in you past/etc... that may prevent or hamper an ability to get a license, do a google search. The concern and/or panic is not being generated in a vacuum of:

~"I just don't know what I did in my past".

Rather, if one is asking, they have a specific event from their past in mind. That makes it an easy google search and/or discussion with med-board (if necessary).... prior to match, prior to certifying ERAS app.

The vast majority of this discussion does not hinge on honest confusion or misunderstanding of the question/s. It hinges on folks seeking specific excusals/rationalizations and/or delay in timing of disclosing specific things they are already concerned may adversely impact their app. This preliminary concern is an affirmative statement to their understanding the question.

...When and how you tell them is the question I think people are having issues with.

There is no issue. You tell them when the question is asked, i.e. ERAS. Peoples' issue, as noted seems to hinge that they are afraid honest disclosure may hurt their chances... that is the point. A program has a right to know, before the match, if an applicant meets their standards and/or licensing standards. If someone has an issue in their past that may hurt their applicant, they have an issue they need to disclose... before the match. Again, not tough or difficult question. The tough or difficult part comes into play only when people are looking for exceptions, excuses, rationalization to avoid accurate ERAS answer and full disclosure prior to match.

...Throughout this discussion a theme continues.... that is, ~it is unfair ~harsh and fear ~that honesty will hurt the application. IMHO, the panic and over read is the result of, deep down, individuals do understand what is being asked. It is not because they are just so confused and it is just so vague as to not understand what is being asked. The claim for ~ignorance or lack of understanding is, IMHO, at its base just a defense mechanism to avoid the question. A question, which some are afraid, if answered honestly, accurately and completely, "programs may trash [application]" . That position/concern screams a reasonable understanding of the question, not confusion or lack of clarity...

Yes, some have made mistakes in their recent or distant past. They must now live with those consequences. That might include a residency not interviewing you. It is now their choice to be honest and demonstrate it was a mistake and/or they have successfully rehahabilitated. Or, they can choose to compound it by hiding, lying, or covering up the mistake. Own your past and use it to show your growth or hide it and show continued character falw at some level. That is life. It's not that complicated.

 

[JaggerPlate]

JAD,

We absolutely must stop this. No more back and forth. We've said the same things probably a dozen times a piece in this thread. Let me state both our arguments and assure you that I'm absolutely done arguing this question.

In the future, I 100000% recommend that applicants contact ERAS, the state medical boards (in all states where they are applying for residency positions), and then correlate the information accordingly when asked (a 2 minute google search isn't sufficient for something this important, especially when the result will lead back to SDN threads full of opinions and assumptions).

Your argument: The question is straightforward - any attempt to not disclose something on the ERAS 'is there anything that could prevent you from obtaining a medical license question,' is simply an attempt for individuals to not disclose something (which is necessary) because they feel it will hurt their chances at residency. This is dishonest, and anyone who can't answer this question easily and quickly is looking for a reason not to disclose something.

My argument: Because the question asks 'is there anything that can prevent you from obtaining a license,' and because this question is vague, subjective, and really can be interpreted MANY ways, it is NOT as straightforward and simply as one would assume.

There are plenty of ways for residency programs to ask whether or not there is a blip in your past that they should know about. HOWEVER, there is a gradient of issues from minor to severe and NOT all of them would affect your ability to obtain a license - no precedent. If a question asks about something that can affect you obtaining a license and you answer the question with 'No, but I do want to explain a dismissed MIP from 1999' then you have NOT honestly answered the question. This isn't something that will prevent you from obtaining a license, this is something that certain INDIVIDUALS feel programs should be made aware of and should be disclosed in the interest of honesty and integrity (and will likely come up in a background check).

Therefore, if the questions were simple and the link between 'disclose stupid crap you did in the past' and 'serious issues that could affect your ability to get a license' was broken, it would read like this:

Q 1: Any felonies?

Q 2: Have you ever been charged with anything (include everything - which is EXACTLY what the medical board says and would correlate the questions)

Q 3: Is there anything in your past that could keep you from obtaining a medical license (EXAMPLES: Sexual crimes, assault, substance abuse - if you're unsure, contact X department at state medical board)

Q 4: is there anything ELSE you would like us to be aware of?

Bam - done. No probably explaining the issues where appropriate, but also disconnects the inappropriate link between silly past mistakes and serious explanations of issues with obtaining a license.

Additionally, I want to make it clear that people who look for clarification on this question aren't all people who are trying to hide something, and that it's also smart to ALWAYS disclose everything when asked, but also to make sure you are legitimately answering the question.

As a parting shot, I just wanted to say that JAD is right, and the best course of action is probably to explain your decade old, dismissed alcohol ticket (Baylor) on the ERAS question. TO me, it seems like 99% of people aren't going to care, and I'm 99.99999% sure it won't prevent you from obtaining a license (again, no precedent). I don't think I should hope for more clarification on the ERAS application, the crux of my argument here has simply been that the question is too vague - all ethics, professionalism, opinions side - it's simply too vague.

JAD, again, thank you very much for your contribution, but this is my last response between the two of us because, as we're both well aware, it's going absolutely nowhere.

 

[gutonc]

JAD,

We absolutely must stop this.

Yes please.

 

[JackADeli]

I thought we had concluded the discussion, hence:

Good discussion.👍 I hope it helps others...

Then I replied to someone elses new post.... which resulted in your return with I guess an attempt to again explain the positions of others in the event I did not understand your explanations or if it would in some way end the circular discussion... that, I thought we had already concluded

JAD,

...I think the biggest 'issue' people are having (and why this thread has been bumped again)... For example, I think ...I do think...

When and how you tell them is the question I think people are having issues with.

Now, we return to your closing... of the recent restart/bump.

JAD,

We absolutely must stop this. No more back and forth. We've said the same things probably a dozen times a piece in this thread. Let me state both our arguments and assure you that I'm absolutely done arguing this question...

Sure, it would be fine to end the conversation. I am not sure about you closing it with your reiteration and/or interpretation of all and then defining how the questions should be phrased to assure you might understand them... But fine, I think anyone can read this thread and understand the positions with or without your final interpretations.

As a parting issue/s:

...Q 2: Have you ever been charged with ANYTHING (include everything - which is EXACTLY what the medical board says and would correlate the questions)...

Sure, a short list of examples (or all inclusive? certain to result in confusion), so everyone can argue that short list did not encompass their individual item. Sure, example list is very necessary to avoid a reasonable person getting confused. Someone might not understand they were ever charged with ANYTHING. Of course, there are 50 medical boards ...and of course the final generic ANYTHING which medical boards do include (see Cali example if necessary).

...Q 3: Is there ANYTHING in your past that could keep you from obtaining a medical license (EXAMPLES: Sexual crimes, assault, substance abuse - if you're unsure, contact X department at state medical board)...

Sure, a short list of examples (or all inclusive? certain to result in confusion), so everyone can argue that short list did not encompass their individual item. Sure, example list is very necessary to avoid a reasonable person getting confused. Someone might not understand there is ANYTHING in their past.

...Q 4: is there ANYTHING ELSE you would like us to be aware of?...

Kind of a silly question given much of the discussion is in relation to avoiding disclosure, i.e. not wanting to disclose.

Ultimately, yes, ERAS can make one or two questions into a dozen and provided parenthesis samples and examples. We of course will have dozens of people complaing:

1. why couldn't they ask a simple question
or
2. it isn't fair cause I think my situation is unique and not comparable to the examples... it's all so vague and complex.
or
3. I didn't disclose cause one question asked if I wanted to disclose suggesting this was my choice.... and I don't want to disclose.

I submit that a general ?pronouns such as "anything", "something", "other thing" can not be avoided and an all exhaustive checklist is not possible. One can succeeed in rewriting the question/s into multiple questions and yet, the global general catch net word of "anything" and/or "something" just gets used in multiple questions... as demonstrated above. Don't see creating four questions from one making it any simpler, just creates more places for people to complain and/or hide behind.

...Q 2: (include EVERYTHING - which is EXACTLY what the medical board says and would correlate the questions)

Q 3: ...(...if you're unsure, contact X department at state medical board)...

Finally, your deceptively simple short four questions have parenthesis implying they should also include very long and or complex additional info presumably taken from ALL 50 medical boards to assure all encompassing. It bears repeating, presumably the increasingly simple Q2 would include... EVERYTHING from ALL 50 state medical boards. And, presumably the increasingly simple Q3 would include... all the appropriate departments for all the unsure questions for ALL 50 state medical boards.

I would submit to you that the vast majority of ERAS applicants have absolutely no difficulty answering the question. Those that get confused/flustered and/or get into trouble are individuals that have issues in their past that they choose to not disclose. Taking one question, making it into four, including volumes of examples and wording from all 50 states, and spreading these four questions accross at least as many pages will not help this individuals. At the very least, we will hear how they missed the example cause the box to check was on page 1 and the list extended to page 4.

It is exceedingly difficult to take one thing, replace it with four things and in some way achieve greater simplicity....

Good discussion.👍 I hope it helps others...